Any use for these dogs anymore?

[Beaudry]

According to stats on the internet Pit Bulls make up 1/3 of the dog population.

I tend to think this is a wild overstatement. Here is a number that I found. I can't verify the fact, but at least it is a source.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/16/EBGH47KIR31.DTL

"For starters, although pit bulls are being bred (and over bred) wildly, most experts, including Beck and his former student, Randall Lockwood, of the Humane Society of the United States, estimate that pit bulls and pit mixes are no more than 6 percent of the overall dog population.

For his study Beck used the American Kennel Club registrations by breed. Although the AKC doesn't register or recognize pit bulls as a breed, Beck included the broad range of dogs, like Staffordshire terriers that fall within the range. Beck stresses that, if anything, his inclusion of dogs with pit bull characteristics was conservative, it was not a wide range of any dog with a square jaw, for instance. And before you fire up your flaming e-mail, Beck reminds you that this is "a representative sample,'' not the total of all dogs. But it is certainly larger than the one we use to rate television programs.

"It was clear,'' Beck says, "that pit bulls were a very small part of the dog population. And second, that small part was accounting for 40-50 percent of the fatal attacks.''

[Huly]

No, you must be reading that wrong. The top 4 dog breeds for popularity in 2004 were Labrador Retrievers, Golden Retrievers, German Shephards, and Poodles. Pits are nowhere in sight.

If you mean 1/3 of the reported attacks or something, you may be right - I don't know.

I will try to find the URL. It might be adding in Pit Bull Mixes too. Crazy day at work I might have misread it etc!

[PleaseBlitz]

Let's just imagine that of all the hundreds of models of automobile available, you chose to drive the legendary "Death Race 2000," a car that is known to have steering problems, has razor blades all along both sides and has dynamite imbedded into its front and rear bumper.

Now someone might reasonably say that you should still have the right to drive a car, while questioning the need for you to drive the Death Race 2000 model.

Yeah, but the Death Race 2000 is "exceptionally bold, loyal and courageous." So it is well worth the risk.

Great analogy.

[AdamB]

Let's just imagine that of all the hundreds of models of automobile available, you chose to drive the legendary "Death Race 2000," a car that is known to have steering problems, has razor blades all along both sides and has dynamite imbedded into its front and rear bumper.

Now someone might reasonably say that you should still have the right to drive a car, while questioning the need for you to drive the Death Race 2000 model.

Honda Civics were designed to be inexpenive communting vehicals with good gas mileage and high reliability.

Honda Civics are very popular among street racers. They modify the car and use it in a way it was not meant to be used. Street racing is not only illegal but dangerous, not just to the racers but also to innocent bystanders and other drivers.

Do we ban the sale of Honda Civics since it is obvious that all honda civics will be used for street racing and ignore the drivers since it would be too hard to go after them?

[BlueTalon]

We had a friend that had a rotty as well but after they had kids, the dog would just stay by the room of the baby and never leave, and give a growl when others tried to go in the room, very strange.

That sounds like the ideal dog to have for someone with kids. Perhaps it strikes you as strange, but it makes perfect sense to me. That dog was doing its job -- protecting the child. In this day and age, I'd be far more worried about human animals than my dog being protective of my kids. (Someone check the stats, please? How many children have been victimized by people vs. by dogs?)

Somebody with perverse desires or ill intent has to go through my Rotty to get to my kid? That's the best kind of insurance you can possibly have! (Much more effective than a ****er Spaniel, I would guess.)

(edit) By the way, a Rotty who has adopted a human child the way you described will not allow anything it perceives as dangerous to threaten the child, and that includes other dogs. So if you were really concerned that a psychotic Pit might crawl under your fence and attack your child, that Rotty would be a great asset.

[Beaudry]

Honda Civics were designed to be inexpenive communting vehicals with good gas mileage and high reliability.

Honda Civics are very popular among street racers. They modify the car and use it in a way it was not meant to be used. Street racing is not only illegal but dangerous, not just to the racers but also to innocent bystanders and other drivers.

Do we ban the sale of Honda Civics since it is obvious that all honda civics will be used for street racing and ignore the drivers since it would be too hard to go after them?

Honda doesn't sell the dangerous cars, stupid people turn those cars into street racers. People can try to turn any animal into a killer. People are crazy idiots who get high huffing paint. These particular breeds of dogs are so powerful that they can kill people if they attack. Even the sweetest dog in the world can have something set it off and go nuts. The difference is that these dogs can, and do, flat out kill people. You cannot control your animal 100%. It is an animal and not a machine.

BlueTalon - I believe something like 1200 children are killed every year by their own parents. Nobody is saying that dogs are the #1 threat. We are saying that rottweilers/pit bulls are an unneccessary threat. I'll wager from your posts that you own numerous guns and keep them in your house. You know, a 9mm is OK protection, but it is "safer" to have a closet full of Ak-47's, right?

[jbooma]

That sounds like the ideal dog to have for someone with kids. Perhaps it strikes you as strange, but it makes perfect sense to me. That dog was doing its job -- protecting the child. In this day and age, I'd be far more worried about human animals than my dog being protective of my kids. (Someone check the stats, please? How many children have been victimized by people vs. by dogs?)

Somebody with perverse desires or ill intent has to go through my Rotty to get to my kid? That's the best kind of insurance you can possibly have! (Much more effective than a ****er Spaniel, I would guess.)

(edit) By the way, a Rotty who has adopted a human child the way you described will not allow anything it perceives as dangerous to threaten the child, and that includes other dogs. So if you were really concerned that a psychotic Pit might crawl under your fence and attack your child, that Rotty would be a great asset.

The dog was growling at the parents and other family members. I guess you think it is ok for Grandma and Grandpa to get bit when wanting to see their grandchild :doh: :doh: it became so attached to the kid they had to get rid of it, and no that is not a good thing.

[redman]

I grew up with cats and dogs. We had a brittany spaniel (Annie), she had a total of 26 puppies in 3 litters. We kept 2 of the puppies, but one got hit by a car and we think the carnival folk stole the other one. When I was older, we had a ****apoo (Lacey). Neither dog ever bit me and both were well behaved. I do have a friend that has a rott and my aunt/uncle had a pit bull.

Redman, so obviously I am not predisposed to have a negative opinions of dogs. Is it possible that you folk, the ones who treat your rott/pitbull like a family member, are the ones who are so determined to not be persuaded?

BlueTalon - I can guarantee you this. Rotts & PitBulls do not make 1/2 the total dog population. They do cause 1/2 the deaths, though.

Where did your dogs sleep, and spend the majority of their waking hours, inside or outside the house?

[redman]

Puppy preschool, puppy kindergarden, took him out all the time all around people, etc...

He was the best dog, always great around people, then he bit some of my friends that came in my house and were petting him. I was naive about all of it untill he bit me one day trying to get his food, he became agressive around people and food real quick, still do not know why.

It was sad to put him down, but had too.

He was a mix, rott, shepard and chow, so it might have been that is not a good mix, who knows.

We had a friend that had a rotty as well but after they had kids, the dog would just stay by the room of the baby and never leave, and give a growl when others tried to go in the room, very strange.

I never want to put in a situation where I have to always worry about my dog again, which is why I now have a bulldog, who are the kindest and fun dogs.

Obviously it's the thing you must do if your dog simply cannot be trusted with people. Your story about your friend's Rotty with the baby is like the one with my father and my grandmother when he was a baby with their German Shepherd, Spike.

Spike was very protective like that I'm told, even backing my grandmother off when she came into the baby's room. He didn't have the biting problem though that your Rotty did and so they didn't put him down. Eventually he adjusted. That protectiveness is one reason why dogs are so wonderful, but that's obviously too much of a good thing.

[Huly]

Honda doesn't sell the dangerous cars, stupid people turn those cars into street racers. People can try to turn any animal into a killer. People are crazy idiots who get high huffing paint. These particular breeds of dogs are so powerful that they can kill people if they attack. Even the sweetest dog in the world can have something set it off and go nuts. QUOTE]

You just proved the point a lot of us have been trying to make! PEOPLE TURN GOOD THINGS BAD! A dog is not born aggressive people make it aggressive. Shepherds, Great Danes, Mastiffs, Sharpeis, Dobermans etc all have the same strength all as the pit and Rotti and could kill too.

[redman]

That's a good point.

I wouldn't even consider owning a dog that has natural tendancies towards aggression, in any form.

Why would anyone?

The problem is that "aggression" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. For example, herding dogs instinctively investigate strange sounds or people approaching and place themselves between the stranger and the "pack" or the "herd", usually in this case you or your family. If the stranger approaches, they'll bark and even posture to warn it/him/her away. With training, this can be softened a bit, but it will never go away.

Other dogs, for example Chows or ****er Spaniels, have a natural tendency to quickly snap at someone touching them or nearby to them, often without warning, when they don't like something. While painful for adults, it doesn't usually cause serious injury however this tendency is dangerous around young children. In contrast, my German Shepherd (typical of the breed; I also see this in for example, Labs) is more prone to reach over and put her mouth around someone's arm and hold it (without injuring or causing pain) as a warning. And then you have the small breed dogs that are virtually unable to cause injury but often are among the most aggressive in terms of being physically confrontational.

So, while I agree with your statement (who can't) the problem is that it needs more definition.

[jbooma]

Spike was very protective like that I'm told, even backing my grandmother off when she came into the baby's room. He didn't have the biting problem though that your Rotty did and so they didn't put him down. Eventually he adjusted. That protectiveness is one reason why dogs are so wonderful, but that's obviously too much of a good thing.

Good point about German's, they are very protective of the mother of the family. My uncle who is cop in NE has 2, and all the germans just stay by the mom. They are protective in like you say a good way. One night my other uncle wanted to see how much so he tied one of the dogs to the door, and then faked like he was punching his sis, and the dog almost took the door down. Every time my uncle looks at his sis now the dog gives him a glare.

[zoony]

So, while I agree with your statement (who can't) the problem is that it needs more definition.

I agree with everything you posted, but in the end it seems a bit trivial.

I have always owned dogs, and always will. I currently have a Golden, as you probably know...

like JB said, if my dog gets out, the first thing I think is 'Oh crap he's probably next door slobbering on the neighbors kids, or he's all muddy, etc.'

The LAST thing I think about is that he might have bit someone, etc. etc.

Look I have known some great German Shephards, but I have also seen some VERY agressive ones. Same goes for pits, rotties, etc. I agree that the owner has a lot to do with it... but we can NEVER take breed history and breed tendancies out of the equation.

In some form or another, these dogs were bred to have agressive tendancies. Sure they can be trained, but let your guard down and these tendancies can surface quickly.

I just don't understand why people would want to own these dogs, and I guess I never will. :whoknows:

I am not advocating stamping out these breeds... I think AdamB has some great ideas on how to address this issue. I think it is way to easy for any idiot to get any dog and do whatever with it.

People have used car analogies, gun analogies, etc. etc. First, these are bad analogies, because none function without human involvement. A dog does. But even if we accept these analogies, it is worth noting that you must have a license to drive a car and pass a background check to own a gun. Not so for dogs, and I think that isn't right.

Finally, I think it is a little different for me, as I'm in the country and it is very common to see people who do not control their animals and they roam neighborhoods, etc. So I might have a different perspective on this issue, as it is not uncommon for my wife and I to be out walking and a dog will come up to us. Believe me, by that time, when I'm 20 yards away from a dog that is walking/running up to me, the last thing I'm thinking about is 'its the owner'.

[zoony]

Every time my uncle looks at his sis now the dog gives him a glare.

Funny story, our old neighbors when I was growing up had a AirDale (sp?).

Any time the father wanted to discipline the children, even raise his voice, he had to put the dog in the garage first. :laugh:

[AdamB]

These particular breeds of dogs are so powerful that they can kill people if they attack. Even the sweetest dog in the world can have something set it off and go nuts. The difference is that these dogs can, and do, flat out kill people. You cannot control your animal 100%. It is an animal and not a machine.

ANY large dog can kill people, not just specifically pit bulls and rotties. A golden retriever can tear soemone up, and have, just like St. Bernards, labs, etc.

Right now, there are more people being killed by pit bull breeds and rotties because right now there are more pit bull breeds and rotties being poorly bred and poorly owned. If the same people decided they wanted mad-dog golden retrievers, guess what, there would be more fatal attacks by golden retrievers than there would be other dogs.

That is what people who are out after specific breeds are just not getting. If it was the breeds themselves, then pitbulls would have been at the top of the list since the 1960s when record keeping began, but that is not the case. Instead it was whatever big dog was popular at the time.

If all pit bulls, or even the majority of them, were hyper-aggressive towards people, they would be at the top of the list for reported bites - they are actually at the bottom. Yes, when they attack they can seriously injure or kill people - as can ANY large dog. No one is arguing that. What is being argued is that pit bull breeds and rotties being put in the position through bad ownership and bad breeding to do so more often, the exact same way German Shepards and Dobermans were in the past. The true nature of ABPTs right now are being twisted by idiots. These dogs are NOT by their nature, or at least what they were bred and designed for, aggressive towards humans. If you disagree, go and read about the development of the breed, what was involved, etc. Labs are actually more human aggressive than APBTs.

[Huly]

I agree with everything you posted, but in the end it seems a bit trivial.

I have always owned dogs, and always will. I currently have a Golden, as you probably know...

like JB said, if my dog gets out, the first thing I think is 'Oh crap he's probably next door slobbering on the neighbors kids, or he's all muddy, etc.'

The LAST thing I think about is that he might have bit someone, etc. etc.

Look I have known some great German Shephards, but I have also seen some VERY agressive ones. Same goes for pits, rotties, etc. I agree that the owner has a lot to do with it... but we can NEVER take breed history and breed tendancies out of the equation.

In some form or another, these dogs were bred to have agressive tendancies. Sure they can be trained, but let your guard down and these tendancies can surface quickly.

I just don't understand why people would want to own these dogs, and I guess I never will. :whoknows:

I am not advocating stamping out these breeds... I think AdamB has some great ideas on how to address this issue. I think it is way to easy for any idiot to get any dog and do whatever with it.

People have used car analogies, gun analogies, etc. etc. First, these are bad analogies, because none function without human involvement. A dog does. But even if we accept these analogies, it is worth noting that you must have a license to drive a car and pass a background check to own a gun. Not so for dogs, and I think that isn't right.

Finally, I think it is a little different for me, as I'm in the country and it is very common to see people who do not control their animals and they roam neighborhoods, etc. So I might have a different perspective on this issue, as it is not uncommon for my wife and I to be out walking and a dog will come up to us. Believe me, by that time, when I'm 20 yards away from a dog that is walking/running up to me, the last thing I'm thinking about is 'its the owner'.

And that is why it is SO IMPORTANT TO CHOOSE THE RIGHT BREED! Every Breed has different standards and different behaviors that need to be known and focused on and turned into a good behavior. If it is not done that behavior can turn destructive.

Ex. Scent Hounds- Their brain is run by 90% of their nose. To train them use treats and when you have the attention of the nose you have the dogs attention. It can turn destructive by getting into the trash, chewing things up, getting loose etc.

[jbooma]

Right now, there are more people being killed by pit bull breeds and rotties because right now there are more pit bull breeds and rotties being poorly bred and poorly owned. If the same people decided they wanted mad-dog golden retrievers, guess what, there would be more fatal attacks by golden retrievers than there would be other dogs.

Adam the problem is not every attack by a pitt is from an owner that is bad :doh:

There is a differece between mauling and biting, and why do you think Rotts and Pitts are #1 when it comes to guard dogs, because they are the most aggresive. You are right any large dog can attack, but only certain ones can attack with such aggresion.

I understand you point about breeds, but you can not blame it all on just bad owners, you can't because it has been proven that is not the case.

Plus the major problem with trying to fix the problem, the majority of these dogs are not licensed and owned illegally, so the numbers do not add up.

[zoony]

ANY large dog can kill people, not just specifically pit bulls and rotties. A golden retriever can tear soemone up, and have, just like St. Bernards, labs, etc.

Right now, there are more people being killed by pit bull breeds and rotties because right now there are more pit bull breeds and rotties being poorly bred and poorly owned. If the same people decided they wanted mad-dog golden retrievers, guess what, there would be more fatal attacks by golden retrievers than there would be other dogs.

.

AdamB you have made some outstanding points in this thread, but sorry, this isn't one of them.

Do you know why these 'same people' have never decided that they want 'mad-dog golden retrievers?'

Simple. Because it would take 10,000 times the energy to make a mad-dog golden retriever as it would a German shephard, Doberman, Rottweiler, or Pit.

The Reason?

Those dogs have hundreds of years worth of breeding, and already have tendancies towards aggression. That was what they were bred for.

You can tell us that the owners are ultimately responsible and I'll believe you, but you CAN NEVER lump all 'big dog' breeds into the same category with the same propensity for aggression.

Sorry, but a mad dog Newfy or a mad dog Golden would have to be altered so much, it probably wouldn't even resemble the breed, and would take an incredibly long period of time.

[AdamB]

I am not advocating stamping out these breeds... I think AdamB has some great ideas on how to address this issue. I think it is way to easy for any idiot to get any dog and do whatever with it.

Thank you

I am all in favor of regulating the ownership of these types of dogs. Maybe I am approaching it from a different perspective than others in that I want those regulations to protect the dogs, but the end reult is that same.

We can sit and argue about the merits of the breeds till we are blue in the face. I can find 50 sources that support my case and someone else can find 50 that support the opposite.

My concern and my issue when all is said and done is that I feel that, as a society, we are focusing more on the breeds involved then actual solutions, not just for rotties or pits, but any dog. In the process, we are actually hurting those who are trying to make things better. When we turn on the news and there is a story about a pit bull killing someone, what happends is a person watching that story who actually might be the perfect owner for one of these breeds, a good owner which is what is needed, is going to be scared off while some yahoo is going to sit there and say "Damn, I need to get me one of those!" when they should not even own a goldfish.

Finally, I think it is a little different for me, as I'm in the country and it is very common to see people who do not control their animals and they roam neighborhoods, etc. So I might have a different perspective on this issue, as it is not uncommon for my wife and I to be out walking and a dog will come up to us. Believe me, by that time, when I'm 20 yards away from a dog that is walking/running up to me, the last thing I'm thinking about is 'its the owner'.

I was just reading an article a few days ago when this thread started that was talking about how there are more dog attacks in the south and west than there are in the northwest, even though it is more densly populated. Having lived or spent alot of time in the south (VA, ARK) and west (NM, West TX), as well as in the country and large cities, I seem to see alot more loose dogs and just flat out wild dogs in the country and South/West than I did when I lived in New York.

Anyways, ya, I see what you are saying, having been in an area like that myself. Personally, I see a dog out by itself, I could care less about its breed, I avoid it like that plague (and call animal control when I can).

[Beaudry]

Where did your dogs sleep, and spend the majority of their waking hours, inside or outside the house?

The spaniels were outside dogs, the ****apoo was an inside dog. Sorry, but you are fishing for something that isn't there.

[PleaseBlitz]

It just seems to me that there are SO MANY great breeds of dogs to choose from, over 500 from what I understand. Why do people even NEED the option of getting the ONE breed of dog that has shown the highest propensity for aggression ending in death? You've said it right, the wrong people are getting these dogs. But it seems that the wrong people are drawn to these dogs and they are endangering people so much that it far outweighs the benefits gained by being able to own ONE PARTICULAR breed of dog, when there are 500 other breeds to choose from.

[MoeRedskins]

If I had neighbors that let their rotty or pit bull roam the neighborhood, it would be time to buy a .22.

yeah dude, the owner is a jackass for letting 6 rotti/pit mixes roam the streets. He should be locked up for that. I mean, owning a rotti or pit isn't a bad thing at all, but having six is a horse of another color.

[redman]

The spaniels were outside dogs, the ****apoo was an inside dog. Sorry, but you are fishing for something that isn't there.

Not really. I'd say you weren't all that familiar with dogs as compared with others, even taking into account the backyard breeding.

[AdamB]

Adam the problem is not every attack by a pitt is from an owner that is bad :doh:

There is a differece between mauling and biting, and why do you think Rotts and Pitts are #1 when it comes to guard dogs, because they are the most aggresive. You are right any large dog can attack, but only certain ones can attack with such aggresion.

I understand you point about breeds, but you can not blame it all on just bad owners, you can't because it has been proven that is not the case.

No, but lets say you have a backyard breeder who could care less about the breed and wants to cash in on the popularity of the dog. They pay no attention to temperment, or even worse, intentional breed bad tempered animals together to go along with the rep. Someone who is otherwise a decent owner gets one of these dogs ("Hey hun, look, free to good home!"). Its not just bad owners but also bad breeders.

And pits make horrible guard dogs unless in the hands or a very well trained handler, most of whom will go with another breed anyways. German Shepards make excellent guard dogs. Why? Bceause you are taking a natural trait (guarding the herd) and modifying it to a specific need. APBTs and the related breeds were never designed for that, so you are actually teaching the dog a behavior that is contrary to its nature, thus making it unpredictable. You are also taking a dog which has alot of dog aggression and teaching it to be aggressive towards humans, also making it unpredictable, since that is also contrary to its nature/design.

And no, you cannot blame every bad dog on a bad owner. Dogs are like people - a dog can be good or bad despite its breed. Bad breeding makes this more of an issue since temperment plays less of a role than it would by a good breeder, which leads to more bad dogs, which, because of the image that people want right now with these dogs, are encouraged.

There is not any one specific problem when it comes to the issues with pits and rotties right now. Research has shown that the behaviors of the owners and breeders play the biggest roles in whether or not a dog is aggressive/violent or not. The breed of the dog plays a role in some types have more aggressive instincts (all terriers, not just APBTs, are more aggressive than a mastiff breed for example), thus require a certian type of owner, or it plays a role in what type of owners a breed is currently attracting.

For example - when APBTs were mainly viewed as a family dog, there were very few problems, since good temperment was important, training was necessary, and the dogs were treated as family, thus making them very comfortable with humans (socialization). When that image was changed and they began to replace dobermans as the "tough dog" to have, temperment became less important, they were rarely trained (or improperly trained), breeding skyrocketed, and socialization went out the window and was replaced with a chain in the backyard.

In other words, while type of breed can play a role, human behavior plays the majority role in whether or not an individual dog is a problem, and the number of problem dogs within a breed.

Plus the major problem with trying to fix the problem, the majority of these dogs are not licensed and owned illegally, so the numbers do not add up.

I agree, any form of regulation, whether its non-breed specific regulation or breed-specific bans is difficult because there are many many dogs, not just of these breeds, that go unlicensed, etc.

The other problem is that it is hard to get accurate stats on dog bites by breed, enviroment, training, etc. because the majority of dog bites do not get reported in the US, and we are talking about 1000's of unreported bites. The problem with this is that 1) a dog biting a person, no matter the breed, is a warning sign (unless provoked), therefore laws such as the one Fairfax has, which is based on dog's actions, not breed, do not work like they should and 2) bites by large dogs, especially those with certain reps like the ABPT, rottie, etc. are almost always reported, however minor the bite is. Therefore, those studying dog attacks have incomplete or inaccurate data to work with.

[PleaseBlitz]

The other problem is that it is hard to get accurate stats on dog bites by breed, enviroment, training, etc. because the majority of dog bites do not get reported in the US, and we are talking about 1000's of unreported bites. The problem with this is that 1) a dog biting a person, no matter the breed, is a warning sign (unless provoked), therefore laws such as the one Fairfax has, which is based on dog's actions, not breed, do not work like they should and 2) bites by large dogs, especially those with certain reps like the ABPT, rottie, etc. are almost always reported, however minor the bite is. Therefore, those studying dog attacks have incomplete or inaccurate data to work with.

How did the topic get changed to dog bites? I thought the topic was deaths. Dog bites heal and you get a good story (I have 2). Being dead doesnt heal so good.

Im pretty sure the statistics on the deaths are kept pretty well. I doubt many of them go unreported.